Some of these people suffered from illnesses that were self-imposed death sentences while the vast majority suffered from the mere consequences handed down to us by whatever Creator you believe and became unwitting suffers of pain and agony.
I'm fairly religious, but I don't think my "creator" sits around choosing which ailments/disabilities to pass on to which person as though it's Santa's toy factory on Christmas Eve
Surely genetics and parental lifestyles and choices determine this.
I agree that people shouldn't be denied, but if the choice came down to either giving the only available lungs to a chain-smoker, and giving it to someone with no history of such activity, that the latter should get it.I think the emotional response is that the patient with a history of abuse should get less consideration, but I don't think it's practical or ethical to either deny or inhibit their opportunity to be treated.
I understand that we feel the need to trivialise this by mentioning absurdities like: obese people, suicide attempters, etc, but if I were in the situation of having made the direct choice to harm my healthy organs (especially a lifetime of drinking and chain smoking), I would make peace with the fact that if there was only one of the type of organ I needed available, the person who didn't make the poor choices I did, should get it.
Unfortunately, having your cake doesn't always mean being able to eat it. (especially at the expense of another)